Yet another new survey shows that Republican supporters know more about politics and political history than Democrats.

On eight of 13 questions about politics, Republicans outscored Democrats by an average of 18 percentage points, according to a new Pew survey titled “Partisan Differences in Knowledge.”

The Pew survey adds to a wave of surveys and studies showing that GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans who support the Democratic Party.

“Republicans fare substantially better than Democrats on several questions in the survey, as is typically the case in surveys about political knowledge,” said the study, which noted that Democrats outscored Republicans on five questions by an average of 4.6 percent.

The widest partisan gap in the survey came in at 30 points when only 46 percent of Democrats — but 76 percent of Republicans —- correctly described the GOP as “the party generally more supportive of reducing the size of federal government.”

The widest difference that favored Democrats was only 8 percent, when 59 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of Democrats recognized the liberal party as “more [supportive] of reducing the defense budget.”

However, Pew’s data suggests that the Democrats’ low average rating likely is a consequence of its bipolar political coalition, which combines well-credentialed post-graduate progressives who score well in quizzes with a much larger number of poorly educated supporters, who score badly.

For example, the survey reported that 90 percent of college grads recognized the GOP as the party most supportive of cutting the federal government. But that number fell to 54 percent of people with a high-school education or less.

In contrast, the Republican party coalition is more consistent, and has few poorly educated people and fewer post-graduates.

Pew’s new study echoes the results of many other reports and studies that show GOP supporters are better educated, more empathetic and more open to criticism than Democrats.

A March 12 Pew study showed that Democrats are far more likely that conservatives to disconnect from people who disagree with them.

“In all, 28% of liberals have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on SNS [social networking sites] because of one of these reasons, compared with 16% of conservatives and 14% of moderates,” said the report, tiled “Social networking sites and politics.”

The report also noted that 11 percent of liberals, but only 4 percent of conservatives, deleted friends from their social networks after disagreeing with their politics.

A March Washington Post poll showed that Democrats were more willing to change their views about a subject to make their team look good. For example, in 2006, 73 percent of Democrats said the GOP-controlled White House could lower gas prices, but that number fell by more than half to 33 percent in 2012 once a Democrat was in the White House.

In contrast, the opinions of GOP supporters were more consistent. Their collective opinion shifted by only a third, according to the data. In 2006, 47 percent in believed the White House could influence gas prices. By 2012, that number had risen to 65 percent up 17 points compared to the Democrats’ 40 point shift.

I’d cut off America’s supply of cheap, abundant energy. I couldn’t take it by force. So, I’d make Americans feel guilty for using the energy that heats their homes, fuels their cars, runs their businesses, and powers their economy.

I’d make cheap energy expensive, so that expensive energy would seem cheap.

I would empower unelected bureaucrats to all-but-outlaw America’s most abundant sources of energy. And after banning its use in America, I’d make it illegal for American companies to ship it overseas.

If I wanted America to fail …

I’d use our schools to teach one generation of Americans that our factories and our cars will cause a new Ice Age, and I’d muster a straight face so I could teach the next generation that they’re causing Global Warming.

And when it’s cold out, I’d call it Climate Change instead.

I’d imply that America’s cities and factories could run on wind power and wishes. I’d teach children how to ignore the hypocrisy of condemning logging, mining and farming — while having roofs over their heads, heat in their homes and food on their tables. I would never teach children that the free market is the only force in human history to uplift the poor, establish the middle class and create lasting prosperity.

Instead, I’d demonize prosperity itself, so that they will not miss what they will never have.

If I wanted America to fail …

I would create countless new regulations and seldom cancel old ones. They would be so complicated that only bureaucrats, lawyers and lobbyists could understand them. That way small businesses with big ideas wouldn’t stand a chance – and I would never have to worry about another Thomas Edison, Henry Ford or Steve Jobs.

I would ridicule as “Flat Earthers” those who urge us to lower energy costs by increasing supply. And when the evangelists of commonsense try to remind people about the law of supply and demand, I’d enlist a sympathetic media to drown them out.

If I wanted America to fail …

I would empower unaccountable bureaucracies seated in a distant capitol to bully Americans out of their dreams and their property rights. I’d send federal agents to raid guitar factories for using the wrong kind of wood; I’d force homeowners to tear down the homes they built on their own land.

I’d make it almost impossible for farmers to farm, miners to mine, loggers to log, and builders to build.

And because I don’t believe in free markets, I’d invent false ones. I’d devise fictitious products—like carbon credits—and trade them in imaginary markets. I’d convince people that this would create jobs and be good for the economy.

If I wanted America to fail …

For every concern, I’d invent a crisis; and for every crisis, I’d invent the cause; Like shutting down entire industries and killing tens of thousands of jobs in the name of saving spotted owls. And when everyone learned the stunning irony that the owls were victims of their larger cousins—and not people—it would already be decades too late.

If I wanted America to fail …

I’d make it easier to stop commerce than start it – easier to kill jobs than create them – more fashionable to resent success than to seek it.

When industries seek to create jobs, I’d file lawsuits to stop them. And then I’d make taxpayers pay for my lawyers.

If I wanted America to fail …

I would transform the environmental agenda from a document of conservation to an economic suicide pact. I would concede entire industries to our economic rivals by imposing regulations that cost trillions. I would celebrate those who preach environmental austerity in public while indulging a lavish lifestyle in private.

I’d convince Americans that Europe has it right, and America has it wrong.

If I wanted America to fail …

I would prey on the goodness and decency of ordinary Americans.

I would only need to convince them … that all of this is for the greater good.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, democrat from The Workers Paradise of California, has got to be at least in the top 10 of the dumbest women in the country. Her long history of misinformation and propaganda in her war against firearms has once again shown her true ignorance, not only on the gun issues, but also, it has shown that her lack of common sense is astounding! She shows definite signs that she thinks square pegs fit in round holes with this latest crusade she has engaged in…

Just today, an article in the Washington Times touted one of the bright spots in the sagging economy which Obama can truly take credit for, but will most certainly NOT take credit for:“Gun industry’s economic impact skyrockets during Obama years”.

Obviously, people are scared under this administration. We see the country going to hell via the express train and most Americans want to be ready to defend themselves. The last 3 1/2 years have shown that Americans are embracing their Second Amendment rights and exercising them for many reasons, chief among them, personal protection. No sane politician would dare to vote against the obviously strong pro Second Amendment force now and expect to get reelected next year, so Sen. Feinstein rummages around in her bag of tricks and pulls this out…

Feinstein: No action on concealed weapons bills

Published April 19, 2012

Associated Press

WASHINGTON – Sen. Dianne Feinstein is trying to block votes on bills that would require a state to honor concealed gun permits from other states.

Most states already have concealed carry laws, except some of the bluest of blue states. If I have a permit and live in Virginia, and I want to travel north to Vermont, I would have to drive an obstacle course through West Virginia, Pennsylvania, then I am literally barred from driving any further north since New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Maryland form a barrier of non-reciprocity, in other words, they do not recognize my permit. If I wanted to go to California my route would look like a hopscotch board of states, with a final stop in Arizona to sell my firearm as California also does not recognize concealed carry permits from Virginia so I would not even be able to enter the state.

The California Democrat wrote Majority Leader Harry Reid and Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, requesting that no votes be scheduled on two concealed weapons “reciprocity” bills. There was no immediate response from Reid, D-Nev., or Leahy, D-Vt., to the letter dated April 17.

So this is the crux of rocket scientist Feinstein’s end run around the American people. She is basically taking her ball and going home, she doesn’t want to play anymore. She is so certain that if this bill actually came to a vote, it would pass, so she wants to deny the democratic process and just stick her fingers in her ears and shout, “la-la-la-la” so she doesn’t hear the arguments in favor of the bill and just hope it goes away.

The National Rifle Association said it would not be deterred in efforts to pass reciprocity legislation.

“We have to work harder to get 60 votes, and we’re prepared to do that,” NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said, referring to the number of senators needed to end a filibuster.

Feinstein wrote, “These dangerous bills … would undermine states’ rights by forcing nearly every state to accept the concealed carry permits issued by other states, even if the permit holder could not qualify for a permit in the state to which he is traveling.”

That’s right, she said “dangerous bills”! Forget all the statistics on the declining crime rates where concealed carry permits are issued. Forget the fact that most permit holders are law abiding citizens exercising a couple of constitutional rights, the right to keep and BEAR arms and the right to self defense. Forget the fact that Chicago (among many other large cities) have some of the strictest “gun control” laws in the country and those cities resemble a combat zone in war ravaged Afghanistan with body counts you need a calculator to keep track of.

She said major law enforcement agencies opposed the legislation.

Feinstein said the bills present a special problem for women who are domestic violence victims.

“Imagine that a man who has been convicted of a domestic violence crime against a woman he had been dating seeks — and obtains — a permit to carry a concealed firearm from his state of residence,” she wrote. “Under the concealed carry reciprocity bills, he could legally travel across state lines and confront his former girlfriend …”

*the sounds of crickets chirping*…………….Huh? Did she really say this? Out loud? Ok, so an abusive boyfriend beats his girlfriend and she leaves him. His ex moves out of state to get away from him. This douchebag decides he is going to take a road trip and beat the hell out her in another state. But then he gets an inspired idea. He decides that instead of beating her he is going to kill her. Hmmm should he use a knife? Strangle her? Well, wait a minute, he thinks, I own a gun! I will just drive to her state, wait for her outside her house and when she comes home I will just gun her down in cold blood. He realizes that he will probably end up in prison or on death row for killing his ex, but he is a nut, so he doesn’t care. He wants to kill her so badly that he doesn’t care what happens to him. So he loads his gun, hops in his car and heads out on an interstate road trip to kill his old love. He leaves his state, grabs some coffee and a donut, and as he is entering the neighboring state, he suddenly realizes that his concealed carry permit is not recognized or legal in the state where his old flame lives….hmmmm what should he do? Should he head home so he doesn’t break the law? Should he postpone his rampage, go home and apply for a permit in her state and wait for it to be approved? Should he just throw caution to the wind and keep driving with an unlawful gun into the state and risk getting arrested? He is going there to kill his girlfriend, but just imagine if he did it with an out of state gun? That’s illegal! So, the lack of reciprocity with her state has saved his abused ex by forcing him to see the error of his ways, that he is not allowed to enter her state with a gun he doesn’t have a right to carry there. So he just goes home, has a snack and joins a computer dating club. Sen. Feinstein has saved a life!

Later that night, his ex is out at a bar, hoping to meet a nice guy to replace the abusive bastard she left in her old home state. A drugged-up junkie with a $25 rusty revolver his drug dealer sold him approaches her and demands her money, jewelry, rapes her at gunpoint, then kills her.

If she had self defense training with weapons, had a concealed carry permit and a gun in her purse, she may have had a chance.

She pointed out that state laws vary widely in their requirements for individuals to possess firearms or obtain concealed weapons permits.

Some states issue permits to people with violent misdemeanor criminal convictions, do not require firearms safety training, and do not grant discretion to law enforcement.

Law enforcement officers, she added, could face potentially life-threatening situations. She said it often is impossible for an officer to determine if an out-of-state concealed carry permit furnished during a traffic stop is valid. She said most states do not enter permit information into the primary database used by officers when conducting a stop.

Hello? Here we go again….every time I have been stopped for a traffic infraction, as a permit holder, I have informed the officer that I have a permit, kept my hands on my steering wheel and informed him if I am carrying a weapon at the time. The officer has, in every instance, been polite, taken my license and registration, gone back to his patrol car, checked me out and come back with a smile and maybe a ticket for a broken tail light and sends me on my way with a happy wave and a “have a nice day”. The officer knows already that I have a concealed carry permit and he is not looking at me as if I am a criminal.

It’s the criminal he pulls over that DOESNT have a permit but DOES have a gun and he does NOT inform the officer that he has a gun that the officer needs to worry about. When will politicians understand that the very word “criminal” implies that a person does not CARE about the law, ANY law. especially gun control laws. Yet concealed carry permit holders are willing to be licensed so that they are legally carrying a weapon. Get it?

The Republican-controlled House passed a similar measure last year.

So you tell me….is Dianne Feinstein even aware of what planet she is on?Or is she just the dumbest person in America?

Share this:

Like this:

Rebecca Frech really cracks me up. She’s been guest posting this month and we’re happy to have her. You can read her regularly at Shoved to Them:

Since moving to Texas, we have discovered the “Playgroup” phenomena. I’m sure there were such things in Oklahoma City, but I wasn’t cool enough to be part of one. Then we moved to the Dallas area, and I was asked to join a few different groups within a month of our arrival. I knew I would be the odd man out, what with the 7 kids and all, but hanging out with “normal moms” has convinced me once and for all that I truly am a horrible mother, and judging by the mouths that fall open when I opine and the subtle head shakes when I talk, I’m not the only one thinking I’m a little outside of “perfect mommy-dom.” People often tell me that they could never have 7 kids and do it well. I’m not so sure that I can either.Can I just be honest here? I know I’m never going to win Mother of the Year. Here’s why:• I give the baby formula when we’re in the car. I know, I know, breast is best. I just haven’t figured out how to drive the car and get it into the back seat all at the same time. They’re not as perky as they used to be, but I’m

Share this:

Like this:

This is why I am SURE this guy is not the brainiac that the left makes him out to be…

——————–

WND VIDEO

Obama speeches ‘exactly same’ a year apart

Side-by-side comparison shows extremely similar wording

Published: 3 hours ago

Joe Kovacs, executive news editor for WND, is an award-winning journalist and author of the forthcoming book, “The Divine Secret: The Awesome and Untold Truth About Your Phenomenal Destiny” (coming July 17), as well as the No. 1 best-seller “Shocked by the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You’ve Never Been Told.”More ↓

When it comes to politicians, they often say the same thing over and over.That statement is taken to a new level when comparing budget speeches from President Obama, one from 2011 and one from 2012.

The Republican National Committee has produced a video showing separate speeches a year apart from Obama talking about financial issues.

The strange thing is that the sentences uttered by the president are virtually identical.

“During moments of great challenge and change like the one that we’re living through now, the debate gets sharper and it gets more vigorous,” Obama said in a speech on the House budget in 2011.

On April 3, 2012, Obama parroted himself, saying, “During moments of great challenge and great change like the ones that we’re living through now, the debate gets sharper, it gets more vigorous.”

As the speech continues, there are only very minor variations in the precise wording.

“The speech is exactly the same,” wrote blogger Eric Odom at LibertyNews.

“I watch a LOT of videos throughout each week. Many of them are outright damning of Obama, his administration and his campaign. But I don’t think any make it more obvious that Obama is a man without ideas or a plan than this one.”

He added: “Why is it the RNC is catching this and the media isn’t? Nevermind. That’s something we all already know.”

Earlier this year, the RNC produced another video highlighting repeated phrases and sentences from Obama’s State of the Union addresses from 2010, 2011 and 2012:

Like this:

…after all, they will be the keepers of the flame. Our kids better start taking some government, history, political courses that are free from PC revisions and “new takes” on American History. Get the faces and fingers out of and off of iPads and iPhones and pick up a book. Here’s a novel idea….READ the constitution! I keep a copy with me at all times….locked and loaded for any eventuality or a chance to introduce someone to the second most incredible document on earth (next to the
Bible).

Share this:

Like this:

Man, I’m tired. I’m tired of so many things political. I argue, I fight, I try to convince, I raise my blood pressure, my face turns red, I splutter, I spit, I yell, I cajole, I look skyward, I roll my eyes, I curse, I bang my fist on the table, I shake my head, I grit my teeth, and, after all that for so many years, what have I accomplished?

Nothing.

I did gain one thing though….I gained a reputation as someone that is passionate in his beliefs and in his defense of the American Constitution and in support of conservative principles. But the “passionate” label also carried with it a wink and a nod that I am TOO passionate. I have been told that I am a relentless, over-the-top radical; a nutcase right-winger that bullies political adversaries into submission, without my opponent actually gaining any rational insight into alternate ideas or the logicality of my arguments.

Then along came Andrew Breitbart and Mark Levin. And I realized that I didn’t have to foam at the mouth and get in the faces of those I disagreed with politically. The way to win an argument or deliver my point is with calm reason, allowing the other guy to go on the defensive and support HIS/HER arguments (which liberals seldom do). And so I found out the key to defeating liberalism: Rationality and reason!

So now I am still tired. The last three years under Barack Obama has seemed like three decades. And I can argue no longer. Arguing is a losing battle, since the adversaries, far-left radicals (notice I am differentiating between hard left and traditional Democrats…if there are any left?), have now gained an invaluable ally, the American Main Stream Media that spends 24/7 backstopping the entire liberal agenda. Not just backstopping, but PROMOTING it.

The battle is no longer over my parents issues of liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican. Tip O’Neil was able to work with Ronald Reagan because there was always the common ground of being Americans first. Now, most Republicans politicians have become liberal-lites, RINOs with the (R) next to their names as the only identifying mark that they are Republicans. Democrats, on the other hand are so unrecognizable, that I honestly believe their party has been hijacked by Socialists and Marxists. And what amazes me is how all the Democrats march in lockstep with the President and the far left leadership of the Senate, oblivious to the obvious agenda of this administration.

Never before have I seen a politician telegraph his punches as Obama has, and the public has just closed its eyes to that announced agenda, of course with the soft lullaby of the MSM lolling them into ignorant unconsciousness. He TOLD us that he intends to “fundamentally change” this country. Now I ask you, what does “fundamentally change” mean? A patch, a tweak, a slight adjustment? No, it means a complete makeover. “What’s so bad about that?” you may ask. This country needs a facelift, we’re getting away from the original intent of the founding fathers. Maybe we need some basic, fundamental change. We have been sending too many jobs overseas, our kids are killing each other over clothing, our culture is saturated with sex and violence, Hollywood and Madison avenue have taken everything they produce to the very vulgar edge of social acceptance. But these aren’t the constructive changes Obama meant. Oh yes, he pays hypocritical lip service to these obvious maladies of our culture, yet it is he and his cronies that are inspiring and fueling this destructive bent to our nation.

Because like any good student of Saul Alinsky, the Obama regime has correctly figured that the way to fool and control the masses is to first make them sheep…ignorant, stupid, apathetic, naive and trusting in the almighty government. And with the aid of the complicit and obliging mainstream media, he has succeeded. People in this country have lost the ability to think for themselves. It is now easier to just follow Dancing with the Stars or American Idol or the latest exploits of the diva of the month, the criminal athlete du jour, and just trust that the United States of America will just “always be”. As the Constitution is shredded incrementally and with growing audacity under this administration, the sheep stay blissfully satisfied with their lot in the world order. Most kids fresh out of high school are lucky if they have learned to recite the ABCs and write their names. History of the United States? Not important.

True story. I once asked a twenty year girl who the Speaker of the House was (it was Nancy Pelosi at the time) and her response, without hesitation or embarrassment, and stated with such pride in the surety and political correctness of her answer was, “it can be either the father OR the mother!”, thinking I had asked who the traditional head of a household is. When I apologized for not being clear enough in my question (didn’t matter we had been in the midst of a political discussion, so I hadn’t exactly gone out of context), I asked her who the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives was. Again, with no hesitation whatsoever, she quickly answered, “oh come on, how should I know that? I’m not political!” I said, “OK, here’s an easy one. Who is the Vice President of the United States?” Honestly, her answer was, “that evil old guy with the bad heart that shot his friend.” Again, that’s a true story.

Which brings me full circle as to why I resolved to start this blog called “The Original Intent”. The name refers to our nation’s founding fathers’ original intent as they wrote that incredible document called the Constitution. That amazing paper that is the foundation on which this great and special country was built, and from whose principles we are veering dangerously away.

My intention is to post more pieces on the fallacies and misinterpretations people make about the constitution, the rights they claim and erroneously attribute to that document, the inconsistencies and “a la carte” choices with which people uphold and defend the Bill of Rights.

Some friends have told me that the conservative movement needs all the rational voices it can get in the battle to keep this country strong and exceptional, a beacon to the world. So I am enlisting in this fight. The other day, at my work, we had a casual “team building” get together with coffee, cakes and talk. There were about twelve employees and management in attendance, and one of them asked me about a good movie to watch on the weekend (I am also a rapid movie buff). I thought for a moment, but before I could answer, he said, “how about that movie about that woman you like so much?”

Well, needless to say, that was a pretty open ended question as there are quite a few women that I like “so much”. Then he clarified with, “you know, that woman from Alaska”.

Ah, I said to myself, that’s where we’re going with this. “Sarah Palin?” I asked.

“Yeah, that one!”

Well, and I am not exaggerating here, every head in that room jerked in my direction, and in a unified, incredulous tone, said “Ewww, you like HER??” Kind of like a second grader shocked to find that his friend actually likes spinach.

And the funniest thing was that most of the people in that room were either not eligible to vote or just had never bothered to vote. And when I said proudly that I did indeed like Sarah Palin and that she has many good ideas and beliefs, you would have thought that I had said that Hitler wasn’t really a bad guy. And I bet not one person in that room could have told me WHY they disliked her, they just knew that the media had drummed into their heads misconceptions that I had neither the time, nor the patience to dispel.

Yet that incident steeled me to begin this blog, to join the battle, to RATIONALLY rebut the wrong headed policies that I fear are railroading my country into the abyss. The direction we are headed has been tried before in many times and places. We fought against these ideas with our nation’s best, some of them even earning the title, The Greatest Generation. We, in our short history, have always been the model, the mentor nation, the shining city on a hill. Even with our blemishes, we have stood head and shoulders over all other nations, past and present. And if we don’t alter the course we are following, we will indeed end up asleep as we drive off a very high cliff.
—————————————————————

“Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”